Yesterday was another long day at the Salon. Or rather it was an evening trip to see the cellars at Bouvet-Ladubay that produced a later finish than anticipated.

Each Salon I try to focus on a particular region or style in a little more detail than is usual, to check I understand the appellation, and that I know who is doing good things but also who isn’t. That way I can get a grip of what the wines are all about, but check I have an appropriate grasp of the hierarchy within the appellation, and hopefully spot any up-and-coming talent. Two years ago it was Savennières, a very instructive set of tastings that really helped me to understand the different styles to be found. Last year I forewent such a program of tastings as I was so short of time, having missed out of the Renaissance and Dive Bouteille tastings.

Yesterday it was the turn of Saumur-Champigny. Saumur-Champigny in particular has a potential for high quality and it is an appellation worth getting to know; Cabernet Franc on tuffeau can produce such elegant purity at times. Sadly I think the Saumur appellations are often skipped over, as they fail to fit neatly into either Anjou or Touraine, and so they sit a little outside the four big regions.

So I tasted from about a dozen top names in the appellation, and it was educational to see who makes good wines, and who doesn’t. Some fairly famous names actually make some fairly dull wines. And there is a strange tendency to over-oak, both white Saumur and red Saumur-Champigny, at other domaines. Up to 30 months in oak is not unknown, the wines tasting more of mint and dark chocolate than the perfumed elegance of Cabernet Franc. Sadly, some of these wines seem to come from the next generation coming through as well as the old guard, so things aren’t likely to change any time soon. In short, there are perhaps four domaines making wines worth your money, while the rest are a disappointment. I will write up all my notes, in new profiles if necessary, in the coming months. There’s none of this shying away from publishing low scores here.

In the afternoon, a more varied bag, with Vouvray and Chinon, and a couple of wines from the Auvergne, which seems to be part of the Loire Valley these days.

Then in the evening I headed over to Saumur (so it was a Saumur-fuelled day all in all) for a visit to Bouvet-Ladubay. I figured this would be a little tour of the cellars, a tasting of vins clairs perhaps, or some finished wines, and a little dinner. But that isn’t how the Monmousseau family like to do things. There was a tour of the cellars, which were filled with rope artistes (I can’t thing quite what else to call them) dangling from the ceiling (the Health and Safety Commission would have had a fit), acrobats (like those above) and so on. I came away knowing nothing new about Bouvet-Ladubay, but the wines we drank (the Mademoiselle Ladubay Crémant de Loire Rosé and the Saumur Trésor in particular) were of high quality. It amazes me that they aren’t more widely appreciated; I guess people like what they know, which these days is Champagne, in all its forms.

Today, it’s back to the Salon, feeling a little jaded although nothing a couple of imminently due croissants won’t fix. I’ll be tasting what I call my ‘staples’ today – Huet, Baudry, Pépière and so on. Hopefully, there will be time for Sancerre and similar as well.

Filed under: Loire
Posted by Chris Kissack on February 5, 2013 at 6:56 am
2 Comments »

Here’s the first of three daily updates from this year’s Salon des Vins de Loire, starting with a quick run-down of the ‘off’ events – those that tag onto the Salon – that I have attended over the weekend.

Friday evening was fairly leisurely – I ate on the train on the way down to Angers, and as a consequence had an early night. Very rare for me! It did mean I was ready for Saturday though, which was a long day. First, a short trek across Angers from my hotel to the Renaissance tasting, at the Greniers St Jean. I missed this tasting last year, the result of the Salon dates having moved, and it has clearly evolved since I was last here two years ago. No more Thierry Puzelat, for instance, who now has his own tasting with friends (the Pénitentes tasting) elsewhere, so I will have to catch up with Thierry later in the year. And no Clos Roche Blanche either. And some new names here; Huet have joined the throng for the first time, a sign of a new self-image now that Noël Pinguet has left perhaps? And a few others of interest; Michel Autran, one of the new wave of Vouvray producers (who makes wine in his spare time – otherwise he is an ER/A&E doctor – something sounds familiar about that….), Toby Bainbridge, an Englishman in Anjou, and plenty of others.

Saturday evening I headed out to La Table de la Bergerie for a tasting and dinner with Vincent Ogereau, Claude Papin and Yves Guégniard, as I did last year. Once again this tasting proved that no matter how much clamour the ‘natural’ wine crowd can make, there’s no substitute for dedication, commitment and thoughtful winemaking, seeking the highest possible quality in the final product rather than obsessing over the methodology and philosophy. These three make some exceptionally fine wines, which also age well, as some older bottles – back to the 1989 vintage – served during dinner clearly demonstrated.

Saturday was therefore a very long day and I was feeling rather jaded yesterday morning but La Dive Bouteille, held at Chateau de Brézé near Saumur, soon perked me up. I last visited Brézé about 3 or 4 years ago, with my family, when my three children enjoyed exploring the tunnels, cellars and giant moat. I hadn’t ever envisaged the cellars crammed full of producers from all over Europe, but that was the scene yesterday. Here there were plenty of good tasting opportunities, including more from the new wave of producers in Vouvray, such as Sebastien Brunet and Matthieu Cosme, both next-generation growers who have recently taken over from their fathers. There were good wines from both.

Thereafter I headed back to Anjou. All weekend I have been skirting around swollen rivers and flooded fields; on Saturday I saw that the Layon had broken its banks, the Maine has been running very high through Angers (I walk more quickly over the bridges than I usually do – although they have been here for a few hundred years and so probably won’t be swept away any time soon) and on the way to Dive Bouteille I saw the Loire had also broken its banks, flooding nearby fields, an impressive feat for what is already a majestic river. On the way back from Dive Bouteille, however, we (Jim Budd, and Nigel and Tom of the RSJ restaurant) were confronted with the Thouet (pictured above) which had decided to forego its usual route under the bridge from which the photograph was taken and flow over the adjacent road instead. Needless to say we turned around and found a different route.

Yesterday afternoon I returned to the Renaissance tasting for a little more, with wines from Loïc Mahé, Christophe Daviau, and a brief detour into Pomerol (although my focus is the Loire, both Renaissance and Dive Bouteille feature domaines from far-distant regions) for a mini-vertical from Gombaude Guillot.

Today, the Salon proper, day 1. I will report back tomorrow.

Filed under: Loire
Posted by Chris Kissack on February 4, 2013 at 6:57 am
Comments Off

It’s February, and so it must be Salon time!

The annual Salon des Vins de Loire is, quite simply, one of the most fascinating tasting events of the year. InterLoire, for all their faults, do an immmense good in bringing together some of the top vignerons of the Loire Valley for this annual tasting bash which fills the Parc Expo exhibition centre on the outskirts of Angers. I am delighted to see that, despite some doubts about its continued existence a few years ago, this event continues on an annual basis. It is without a doubt a hugely valuable opportunity for the trade and the press to get to grips with the wines of the region; wines are written about, deals are done, and sales are made as a result.

This year’s Salon is on the 4th, 5th and 6th of February, and I will be there. Thanks to a shift in train times from Angers to Paris I will be able to spend more time there on the Wednesday (in previous years I have had to leave at midday – this year I will be there until the bitter end), so I expect to return with notebooks brimming with more information, reviews and notes than ever before. That’s if my feet and palate hold up…..

A particular joy of the Salon is the build up of other events around it. I’m just heading for the airport now, so will get there Friday evening. A bit early for a Monday morning start, wouldn’t you say? Well, on Saturday I will be at the Renaissance tasting in Angers; this used to be called Renaissance des Appellations, then when they realised they didn’t like the appellation system it became Reniassance des Terroirs I think. I’m not sure what it’s called now; it could be Renaissance des Renaissances, for all I know. Whichever it is, this is where I get to grips with the latest vintages from Marc Angeli, Richard Leroy, Thierry Puzelat (pictured above) and others.

Saturday evening is time for Pierre-Bise, Bergerie and Ogereau I hope; we have met up like this in past years, but I’m unsure of this year’s arrangements – we shall see. If not, no worries, I will pick them up at the Salon. Then on Sunday I’m off to La Dive Bouteille, another tasting of non-adherents to the InterLoire machine where I hope to pick up a few domaines missing from my Loire profiles. Off the top of my head I’m thinking of André-Michel Brégeon and Marc Pesnot (both Muscadet) but I haven’t had time to do the research – I must check out who will be there!

Then, three days at the Salon; Pépière, Hureau, Huet, Vacheron. And maybe one or two others.

For this reason, I won’t be making any regular updates to the site from Saturday to Wednesday, and my next post (more on Bordeaux 2010, surprise, surprise) will be on Thursday 6th. I will make some blog posts to let you all know what I’m up to. Happy drinking all!

Filed under: Loire
Posted by Chris Kissack on February 1, 2013 at 10:21 am
2 Comments »

Time for another Sauternes now. Deep down I think I’m a reasonably ordered individual, meaning I’m the sort of person who might just plod on with 2001 indefinitely (or at least until the wines run out). I think I will have to mix it up a bit though; there are so many other interesting Sauternes vintages to look at, including 1997, 2003, 2005 and 2007. I even had a good 1998 the other day.

So, coming soon, a different vintage, promise. For today though, another 2001. And it’s another stunner.

Château Suduiraut (Sauternes) 2001: From a half bottle. There is some very subtle volatility which thankfully dissipates. I’ve had this before with 2001 Suduiraut; although the last bottle in 2010 was clean, the one previous in 2006 was quite pungent, although it did blow off to some extent if I recall correctly. Happily here the great concentration of botrytis some comes to dominate, all heady and perfumed, with intense aromas of oranges and apricot and some creamy almond tones too. The palate is confident, just as seductive as the nose, textured, with great grip and precisely defined fruit. No shortage of concentration as the nose suggested, honey on toast with a sprinkling of citrus freshness, backed up by lots of tangible extract. This has an amazing presence in the mouth, and is incredibly long. Another superb wine from a great vintage. 18.5/20 (January 2013)

Filed under: Bordeaux
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 31, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Comments Off

Last year I wrote on the practice of provignage at Domaine de la Bergerie. In a quick two or three sentence recap, provignage is an ancient method of propagating plants, including vines, obviously. A branch or runner is pinned under the soil (with a peg of some sort, or simply by placing a rock over it), after which it will put out new roots, and by cutting the runner/branch joining this new growth to the parent plant – hey presto! – you have a new plant. For free. It was, naturally, an excellent way for peasant vignerons to propagate new vinestock for their vineyard (there’s more detail in the post linked above if the above isn’t clear).

And then along came phylloxera. And now, if you believe the books, vines in France and other infested regions of Europe must be established on grafted phylloxera-rootstock if they are to survive. Either that, or planted on certain phylloxera-unfriendly sandy soils.

Which is why the vines at Domaine de la Bergerie were of such interest to me. They had been propagated using provignage many decades before, and seemed to be thriving, despite living on their own roots in a damp clay soils, just perfect for phylloxera. Proprietor Yves Guégniard didn’t seem to know why or how they survived, but I suspected it was something to do with the fact that in every case the original runner connecting the new plant to its parent had not been cut.

I haven’t thought much about it since until, late last year, at Château Boyd-Cantenac in Margaux, there before my eyes were yet more vines propagated in the same manner. The picture above shows the runner, about as thick as my thumb (and so nowhere near as old and crusty as Guégniard’s vines) which originates with the parent (on the right) and dives beneath the surface towards the roots of the offspring plant (on the left). Here, however, owner Lucien Guillemet referred to this practice not as provignage but as marcottage. Having read around, I can see no difference between the two practices; I had thought it might refer to whether the runner is cut or not, but it seems not. Descriptions of the two are identical; I would be delighted if any viticulturists or plant scientists out there want to chip in with an explanation of how they are different, if indeed that’s the case.

I asked Lucien what would happen if the runner were cut, and he was quite certain in his response; the offspring plant will die. This clearly indicates it is reliant on its parent for support, and so my initial suspicions were correct. Its own (no doubt phylloxera-infested) roots are not enough to maintain vitality, but with the help of its parent’s American rootstock it survives. Does any nutrition come from the infected root system at all, I wonder? Is the plant entirely dependent on its parent for life, or is it more of a crutch? And if dependent, is it really a separate vine, and not merely a branch? Should this be taken into consideration when looking at planting density, numbers of buds and bunches, and yields?

Filed under: Bordeaux, Viticulture
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Comments Off

My exposure to Italian wine is not as frequent as it used to be; I spend so much time wrapped up in Bordeaux and the Loire, that opening an Italian bottle – perhaps as part of one of my vintage reviews at 10, 15 or 20 years of age – often comes as something of a treat.

So I was glad recently to take a look at these wines sent by Vitalonga, not least because my Italian experience focus so often on the classic regions, Tuscany in particular. These wines hail instead from Umbria, a small and land-locked region not quite midway down Italy’s peninsula.

I have tasted previous vintages of these wines, reported here, and these latest releases showed better. Particularly notable was the Sangiòvese cuvée, which is bright and pure. It’s intended for drinking soon, judging by its style (and synthetic closure). Not a complex or deeply characterful wine by any means, and not every wine should be; this is just a glass of dry and fruity joy. My favourite, though, was the Terra di Confine, which demonstrates that there is life beyond Sangiovese in this part of Italy.

Vitalonga Sangiòvese IGT (Umbria) 2011: Bottled under ‘Korked’ synthetic closure. A very good colour to it, dark but with a vibrant rim. Some attractive fruit on the nose here, sweet and fresh, not confected, with some darker tones to it, hints of cherry and blackberry, but crisp, fresh, and biting rather than darkly ripe. A very nice texture on entry, and this conviction is not lost through the middle, which broadens a little in terms of texture, caressing quite gently, with freshness of fruit, a correct structure, good acidity and dry extract. For the level (and price perhaps?), a real success. Sure it’s straightforward, but it’s delicious, uncomplicated, easy-drinking wine. 14.5/20 (January 2013)

Vitalonga Elcione (Umbria) 2009: Bottled under natural cork, a blend of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot frm clay and chalk soils, fermented in steel, with six months in French barrique thereafter. The aromatics are bright and cool, and despite the varieties used it’s clear from the outset that this possesses a very Italian style. There are notes of cranberry skin, sweet red cherry and black pepper, all with a slightly diffuse, roasted-fruit, caramel-vanilla tinge no doubt from the oak. It has a sour-fruit character on the palate, with very firm Italianate acidity and structure, never fleshy or flattering, leading into a dry finish. A rather attractive style, albeit with better definition to the structure of the wine, which with a little time shows a bright, peppery endpalate, than there is to the fruit. 14.5/20 (January 2013)

Vitalonga Terra di Confine (Umbria) 2009: A blend of 80% Montepulciano and 20% Merlot, fermented in steel and aged in French oak barriques for 12 months. A dark hue in the glass, but a vibrant rim. The nose certainly speaks of the principal variety, with scents of blackberry and black olive, with a dark and sooty underbelly, as well as a honeyed application of oak. The palate is fresh, medium-bodied and showing bright acidity cutting through the fruits which here have a more sappy and biting, just-ripe feel than the darker scents on the nose suggested to me. It has a very lively, acid-bound style, which leads into a short finish. Good wine. 15/20 (January 2013)

Filed under: Italy
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Comments Off

From its beginnings more than twelve years ago my principal aim in writing and publishing Winedoctor has been the provision of high-quality, reliable, detailed and regularly updated articles. Over the years my commitment to the site, and to wine, has grown in a manner previously unimagined. I travel to Bordeaux between one and three times each year, and I visit the Loire Valley once or twice per annum, in order to visit, taste and report. In addition there are a long string of tastings in the UK which I attend, giving me plenty of early starts out of Edinburgh in order to get to London on time. It can be exhausting at times! I believe that what is published on Winedoctor makes it all worthwhile though, and feedback from readers – both wine professionals and consumers – who have found the site useful supports my belief. Thank you all, for the constructive criticisms received over the years, as well as your occasional words of praise.

So the last twelve years (well, nearly thirteen actually) have been a success. What of the next thirteen, and beyond? Naturally, in the coming years, I would like to continue to develop Winedoctor even more, with more detailed reports, broader coverage and even more frequent updates.

If something is to be done, one should do it; one should undertake it firmly.
~ Buddha

Beginning with Bordeaux, in the pipeline in the next twelve months is the publication of an extended guide to region (to be followed by the Loire), updating those pages already published, and adding many more. In addition my existing Bordeaux profiles are all being overhauled, and within a couple of years these should be complete. There will also be more focus on Bordeaux that we can all afford, with forthcoming profiles of cru bourgeois estates and the domaines of ‘lesser’ appellations lined up for publication. And naturally the vintage-focused reviews will continue; this year I will spend eight days in Bordeaux for the primeurs, generating a report even more detailed than that for Bordeaux 2011. There is also an ongoing report on Bordeaux 2010, (Pauillac 2010 published today), and later in the year I will return to Bordeaux 2009 and Bordeaux 2011 once more. As for the Loire, I can promise a huge broadening of my profiles, renewing and updating those currently online, and adding many new ones. The Loire coverage is, I believe, already the most extensive and detailed discourse on this region available online, and these further additions and updates should only enhance that. As for the vintages, it has become my custom to look at the most recent releases, so this year’s reports will touch on 2012 and 2011, but I will also continue to fill in the gaps in my vintage reports with Loire 2007, to come later in the year.

And of course, I can’t completely ignore the rest of the wine world. A trip to the Douro is planned for October; I hope I can pull this off, as it might clash with a major Bordeaux tasting in London, and I will also be leading a tour to Bordeaux with a well-known wine travel company that month. It looks as though October is going to be busy; it is already putting my organisational skills to the test, and it’s only January…..

Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death (nor charging a fee) can erase our good deeds.
~ Buddha (with additional material by Kissack)

Well that is my plan for the year. There is, however, one very significant change coming to Winedoctor that I have not yet covered, and it is perhaps the crux of this post. Since its inception in the spring of 2000 Winedoctor has been free to access, funded by the gracious support of an elite band of sponsors, as well as me dipping my hand into my own pocket, quite deeply at times, as the costs associated with flights, hotels, the hire of a not-quite-luxurious vehicle (the one pictured below – my transport for the Bordeaux 2011 primeurs – is typical) and so on soon add up. With twelve years of Winedoctor behind me I have decided that this is no longer the way forward for the site, especially if it is to continue to develop in the ways that I have described above. Having realised that, I have concluded that the time has come for me to charge for access to my writings on Winedoctor.

This early warning of this change is to ensure that regular Winedoctor readers, and I know some have been reading for many years now, are aware of this forthcoming development; throwing up a paywall overnight just isn’t my style. The decision has not been taken lightly, and has been the product of a year of considered thought and planning, along with a long period of behind-the-scenes development (details of which I won’t bore you with). More precise information on the access fee, payment method, which articles will require a subscription to access them and other details can be found below. I will not be asking for payment until March at the earliest, so although change is coming soon it is not immediately imminent. I want to be straight with Winedoctor readers, and ensure the forthcoming change does not appear as if ‘out of the blue’.

I have posed some likely questions and answers below. If they don’t answer your particular query, please feel free to comment or ask questions using the form at the bottom of this post, or if you prefer you can, as always, email me.

Why change to pay-to-access?

I realise I have already explained this above, but it seems worth reiterating and expanding here. The detailed articles on Winedoctor take time to research, and travelling to Bordeaux, the Loire and other regions necessitates expenditure. It has come to the point where, if I am to be able to continue devoting the amount of time to Winedoctor I currently spend on it, and if I am to be able to expand and develop it in the way I have laid out, it becomes necessary to charge a fee. Having an income from this site would protect my ‘Winedoctor’ time from the many other pressures upon it, which are undoubtedly increasing year-on-year, and in truth the major risk to the continued development of the site. If the site generates some income, it will allow me to fence off my ‘Winedoctor’ time and thereby safeguard the existence and development of this site into the future.

Doesn’t the advertising pay for the site?

The advertising has purposefully always been low-key; only the home-page has more than one small banner. The income is small and contributes towards the costs incurred (described above), but does not cover it.

When will the Winedoctor paywall be established?

I aim to establish the paywall in March. I could set it up today, as the software is installed and has gone through integration and testing. Nevertheless, throwing up an overnight paywall smacks of rudeness and arrogance, neither of which are attributes I desire. I hope the time between my initial announcement, and the paywall being established, will be sufficient for regular readers to acclimatise to the idea of Winedoctor being a pay-to-access site.

Will all Winedoctor content be behind the paywall?

Not all of the Winedoctor content will be behind the paywall, but the meat of the site – the producer profiles, tasting reports, en primeur assessments, wine guides and so on – will be pay to view. Some content, including some new content, will remain free to all. The blog posts will remain outside the paywall, and my weekly wine of the week reports will also remain free to view.

What about the Winedoctor notes on Cellar Tracker?

I have enjoyed my association with Cellar Tracker as one of the professional reviewers. From the time of the changeover these notes will be viewable only by Winedoctor subscribers. At first this will be achieved through the exchange of information with the multi-talented Eric LeVine. Eventually the process will be automated, as it is for other professional reviews on Cellar Tracker.

What will be the fee to access the Winedoctor content?

The fee to access the content will be a one-off payment of £45 per annum (this equates to £3.75 per month), payable by credit or debit card. There will not be a per-article or monthly fee option. There will of course be options for muliple purchases for those in the trade, and discounts for WSET students and the like; details on these are to follow. Credit card payments will be collected by a reputable online card payment system (SagePay) to ensure maximum possible security and peace of mind regarding your card details. Setting this up has not been an inconsequential cost, but I consider the security of your information to be paramount, so this is the route I have taken.

What about those of us who gave you a Paypal donation?

Thank you so much – I was really touched by the donations I received, of which a handful were extraordinarliy generous. I would be delighted to offer a free year’s subscription to anybody who made a donation, regardless of the size of that donation. It does not matter if your donation was smaller than the above stated subscription fee; consider this free year of access as a reward for your spontaneous generosity. Once the paywall has been erected please send me an email and once I have verified the receipt of the donation – I have a record of all received – I will set up your access.

If there are any further questions, as noted above, please don’t hesitate to comment below or get in touch.

Filed under: Wine Writing
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 25, 2013 at 9:29 am
14 Comments »

Time for another Sauternes now, and after a brilliant 2001 from Château Rieussec I figured it made sense to stick with this vintage. Next up, a wine from a property situated quite close to Rieussec (although I suppose in Sauternes, most places are ‘quite close’ to one another).

Château Guiraud is owned by a quartet of notables, major financing coming from Robert Peugeot (yes, as in the cars) with expertise from Stephan von Neipperg (Canon-La-Gaffelière, La Mondotte, d’Aiguilhe, etc.), Olivier Bernard (Domaine de Chevalier) and Xavier Planty who has been here ever since he was appointed manager by a previous owner, Frank Narby, in 1988. The estate is notable for achieving organic certification in recent years. The style tends towards a slightly fatter character than most other wines of the commune, and has been on the up in recent years I think.

Château Guiraud (Sauternes) 2001: A rich, lightly burnished, golden hue here. The nose has a similar depth of character, with oranges, apricots and marzipan, giving plenty of botrytis suggestions. It is full, fat and creamy at the start, showing marzipan and caramel twists through the middle, evidence of considerable richness, but with a good fresh frame to it as well, the richer and more substantial elements lifted by notes of citrus fruits and by a bitter grip that runs into the finish. This has really settled down in the last couple of years, as although it is still a substantial and broad wine the oaky overtones and rambunctious barley sugar notes experienced a couple of years ago seem to have faded. This has firmed up, and yet still carries consierable weight and substance, and is very long. Lots of nutty orange nuances in the finish, which goes on and on. A joy. Another sign of what a great vintage this is. 18/20 (January 2013)

Filed under: Bordeaux
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Comments Off

Take a look back to the 1970s and you can see that things were not all going Bordeaux’s way. There were some fairly shocking vintages, the wines now long dead (I accept there are always exceptions to such ‘rules’, but as a generalisation this stands). Few vintages really excite any interest; I have tasted some 1975s, quite a few years ago now, and found them hard and ungiving. I have tasted fewer wines from 1970, and thought they were better, although they were certainly far from magnificant. The 1978 vintage also produced some decent wines although, perhaps strangely considering it is the most recent, my experience with 1978 is very limited indeed. In addition, the region was rocked by the Cruse scandal when vin de table was creatively ‘reclassified’ and sold off as Bordeaux (i.e. upgraded to the status of the appellation, thereby increasing in value, but obviously ripping off consumers). And, if you’re a Parker follower, you would be inclined to say all the wines were rubbish anyway, the châteaux coasting on their laurels rather than providing true quality, none of which came along until the guru of Baltimore shook the Bordelais by the lapels.

Look to the past decade, however, and it seems like things are really going Bordeaux’s way. The wines are better; I realise that’s a slightly dangerous statement to make, as I know there has been a change in style as well as quality, and I know there are some who see the modern wines as over-fruited, cropped too late, over-oaked, over-rich, inappropriately forced through early malolactic, too sweet and so on. And they hanker for the more savoury wines of the 1950s and 1960s; I understand this position, although I think I prefer the way we have things now. The hit rate is much higher. In fact, in dissecting the vintages of the past decade, I would do the opposite to what I did with the 1970s above; there I picked out two or three decent vintages which were distinct from the dross. But in the vintages since 2000 (I’m being quite liberal in how I interpret the word ‘decade’) there are only two or three questionable vintages among others which range from good to superlative.

Why the wines are so much better cannot in my opinion be laid at the feet of one event or individual. The climate is more favourable (although that can’t last forever), there is a more robust approach to viticulture in many vineyards, the processes of winemaking is better understood, wineries are cleaner and better funded thanks to the influx of big-business proprietors, there has been impetus for change and better wine-making (and more profit-making) following astute appraisals from Parker and other critics, and with improved economic prosperity (which remains true despite the recent/current depression in many economies) markets have grown, and new markets are opening up. China remains hungry for Bordeaux despite also becoming aware of Burgundy and the Rhône, and Brazil rather than the oft-touted India may well be the next big market. Little wonder that prices have risen; you could say it was inevitable, regardless of how unpalatable the numbers might appear to cash-strapped consumers (that includes me by the way).

With such broad success it is perhaps worth teasing apart which vintages are merely good, excellent or legendary. Reports from Bordeaux are likely to be very positive these days, at least that’s the case if you’re a fan of the wines (as I am). Only in vintages such as 2011 and 2007 will the criticism outweigh the praise. It can therefore be difficult to figure out what the true ‘worth’ of a vintage is, and where our interest (and cash) should be directed. With that in mind I thought it might be worth putting down a few thoughts on my five favourite vintages of recent years, and where my preferences lie. The following vintages are ranked acccording to my personal preference. These words pertain solely to the red wines, not the dry or sweet white wines. There are several caveats; first, I didn’t taste all the vintages at the same stage in their evolution. More recent vintages were tasted en primeur, but earlier vintages were tasted in their youth (at two or four years of age) or even into maturity. Secondly, my assessments are based purely on aesthetics, and I don’t take prices (which will obviously drive purchasing decisions as much as quality) into account.

Favourite Vintages….

Bordeaux 2005: I think, despite the hyperbole from some quarters about the 2009 and 2010 vintages, this is probably my favourite from recent years. There is ripeness, balance, structure and composure from many of the wines. I haven’t tasted any for some time, but have some in the cellar for future assessments.

Bordeaux 2010: This is a difficult one, as in some communes I prefer 2009 to 2010, and both have flaws to their beauty. In particular, both have given us some problematic wines on the right bank which feel over-extracted, hot and alcoholic. Nevertheless the structure and composition (on the left bank especially) in 2010 appeals more to my palate than the seductive hedonism of 2009 I think. High prices for the second vintage in a row meant I didn’t buy, but there is yet time. I have an extensive report coming very soon.

Bordeaux 2009: A luscious vintage which feels like cream on the palate. That isn’t to everybody’s taste, obviously, but it dings the hedonistic dong, if you see what I mean. Some wines, again on the right bank, come out very alcoholic and extracted. Elsewhere there is a better sense of balance. Happily I have quite a lot of this vintage tucked away for future tastings, so we should see whether they pan out to be as good as expected.

Bordeaux 2000: This is an interesting vintage; certainly a good one, but recent tastings lead me to question the greatness that was attributed early on. The wines are ready or nearly ready in some cases, but a surprising number show a distinctive green streak – very prominent in some wines – which is surprising given the rave reviews the vintage received early on (I didn’t taste it en primeur). I should be able to publish a review of the vintage some time in the next six months.

Bordeaux 2008: Perhaps some would see this as an obvious inclusion, as it has been highly rated by some, but for me it just scrapes in. It was a relatively weak growing season, cool and wet like 2007, but saved by an Indian summer. The right bank is much better than the left, which shows the nature of the vintage more plainly. I feel that a comparative tasting of 2008 and 2006 or 2001 might throw up a few surprises, but I don’t have the money to put on either event….

Beyond my top five vintages, things start to get a little hazy. I think I would probably go for 2001, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2003 and 2007 in that order. I do wonder, with a strong performance on the right bank, and decent wines on the left bank, whether 2001 shouldn’t be above 2008. But I haven’t tasted the wines for so long, I couldn’t say. I have plenty of 2001s in the cellar, but almost all Sauternes. Maybe it is time to see if I can uncover any reds?

Filed under: Bordeaux
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm
6 Comments »

I enjoy buying Sauternes; after all, you get such good value for money. And I enjoy drinking Sauternes too; show me a sensible person who doesn’t. I appear to have something of an imbalance between these two worthwhile activities though, and as a consequence I have several bins full of Sauternes, many from the 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003 vintages. Whereas there’s no need to drink up individual bottles at these sorts of ages, when you have cases or half-cases of each then there comes a time when you really have to start tucking in.

So, here’s my solution – more Sauternes on the Winedr blog. I don’t think I will manage a Sauternes every week; the spirit and palate are willing, it’s simply the lack of time (and hepatocyte attrition) that will hold be back. But I will see if I can keep it up. Maybe once I’ve worked my way through Sauternes, I will do the same with a Loire appellation. Quarts de Chaume, perhaps?

On we go, with this week’s wine. We start with a bit of a bang; a stunning wine, from Château Rieussec, from a great vintage.

Château Rieussec (Sauternes) 2001: I have enjoyed many examples of Sauternes from this vintage, but here in Rieussec we have something very special. The colour is rich and golden, but then that is not particularly unusual for the vintage in question. It is on the nose that the wine begins to stand apart from its peers, with a hugely convincing display of botrytis, counterbalanced by fresh aromas of bright fruit. Representing the former there are notes of honey, fragrant and scented with thyme, along with vanilla, coconut and a little twist of caramel. The fruit, meanwhile, comes in the form of orange and apricots, bright and defined, altough clearly also suggesting botrytis. The palate does not disappoint after this strong start, showing all the convincing richness of slippery, botrytis-coated fruit, along with some tangy, grippy orange character. What impresses most is the very complete, harmonious picture it presents, despite the remarkable substance and concentrated flavour it carries. A superb wine. 19/20 (January 2013)

Filed under: Bordeaux
Posted by Chris Kissack on January 16, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Comments Off